Yes, some of this stuff is a bit weird. It's also clear there's something fishy with the whole 'negotiate a trade proposal' thing: You aren't really supposed to be using it, apparently, because the AI will accept virtually any trade under this negotiation whereas if you simply ask for a galaxy map swap it will decline. That leaves the question, 'why then present it to the player?'. I think doing so simply detracts from the overall presentation. DW is a little weak in this regard. Part of the enjoyment of playing a 4x is the illusion that you're accomplishing something, you're beating the opponents. A 4x is a competitive game. If it is made too obvious to the player that there is no such cometition going on, this illusion breaks (as you provide an example of above). Yes, we can handicap ourselves by not accepting beneficial trades, by allowing auto-managed tax rates that cripple our population growth and by building badly designed ships, but... see where this is going? That simply isn't fun. But it really is how the game currently works. I think DW would feel much more 'pro' if these things were cleaned up. Having a functional metagame is important.

I'm also simply unwilling to let the tax rate float regardless. Part of the fun is seeing your tiny little dot on the map sprawl out and become a mighty empire. The absurdly high growth rates are fun, I like them - so much I want the AI to have them, as well! If one doesn't run 0% taxes, however, it will take unreasonably long to have happen. I really hope the developer[s?] decide to address this.

I think the problem with the offers, is about inflation both in amount of money and in values. You can see crazy trade values on some bases and actions like trade sanctions and war declarations. If some AI got some credits, it does not value them much. Gas mines on fuel sources can run in 10s of millions, while you got spare sources sitting around that you could build on at "any time".

One main problem is that the AI does not know how to spend to the limit. The real income of the empire is hidden to both yourself and the AI, as it is a sum of steady taxes and more random bonus income. At some point (probably in an early Legends beta patch), it was changed so the AI runs some checks where it spends a part of cash on hand on ships and bases. This helps a bit on the "no build" AI.

I think the AI has a threshold for accepting a trade. And it is possible that this threshold is influenced by factors like relations and empire needs to some degree. In some instances the AI really wants the result to happen (for some reason) it will accept lower options.

Not having studied this too much, I seem to be able to trade at even values with some empires, have to go some 10% above with other empires, and when some empire suggest the trade the offer could even be a bit below the value (seen from my point). I also believe that if you reject the offer and try to recreate it, the AI will not accept.

Interesting thread - I think it raises some questions about just how much one can customize before it essentially becomes 'putting more queens in the field'. I don't play 'to win' like this, but I nonetheless do customize certain things: It's just annoying not being able to build a troop transport early and it seems too stupid and boring to settle for the default tax rates (which all the AIs are forced to use and thus suffer, making you gain the upper hand!).

The real issue, of course, is that things are done non-optimally in the first place - it's just weird that things get designed wrong by default. The underlying issue, however, is that a rebalancing is needed in many fields. This would also let the player just play the game without having to worry about nonsensical and tedious 'optimization' - and it would make the AI a lot more competitive, too! What's needed is things like:

1) Setting tax rate to just a few percent shouldn't completely destroy population growth compared to running 0% tax, it makes no sense at all. Honestly, the way it works is just bad; completely unintutive. I also doubt anybody truly enjoys managing tax rates but the game essentially forces you to because the penalty for not running 0% is so blatantly unbalanced.

2) Research model needs to change, it doesn't make sense that the optimal is having just three massive research stations. Of course one can conduct better research by performing it across many different locations and investigating different neutron stars/black holes/etc.

3) Place some limits on the amount of extractors, cargo bays, docking bays and more on a design by limiting their efficiency past a certain amount. Optimal play should be using designs as they are now so that one can't simply build ultimate editions of anything.

4) No re-designing of private ships to outfit them with sensors or other nonsense exploits (I actually thought this was no longer possible).

Basically, instead of making it optimal for the player to abuse the game rules, change the rules so that there's no benefit to be had from exploits. (Not to hammer on your post, Harrs, rather the game ;) )

Good points Apheirox.

However 2) is plainly wrong from a strategic point of view. You get no better research values from going this route, as compared with having minimal research bases at those three locations and the rest of your research labs in a massive spaceport. There is a distinct advantage in the latter method as you can refit the spaceport as you get better weapons/defenses or your need for labs change. Also with the three massive research labs what are you to do if you discover a better bonus location? So do not regard 3 massive research labs as optimal, far from it!

And 3) already exists to a large degree as the maxiumum extraction rate is capped in Legends at 10 for mines and 40 for gas mines. Hence there is never any point going beyond 3 gas extractors or 4 mining engines and this number drops as your tech improves. The number of cargo bays and docks although handy in some circumstances cannot lift the maxiumum throughput of resources which is limited by the extraction rate. (Note that even putting extractors on bases to reach the cap is not 'optimal' in all circumstances. With the intial mining tech that fourth mining engine only extracts at one third efficiency. Once you have the first mining tech one engine of the four is entirely useless for extracting resources and a second engine only extracts at 50% ability and yet you cannot remove them from the bases and will continue to pay maintenance for them. With the second mining tech 2 engines are entirely useless.

Unfortunately the extra maintenance costs are entirely disregardable with the current state of the economic side of the game. If the lack of challenge from the cpu empires is the players first extra queen, the ease of money-making beyond the early game is definitely the second. Personally I would have them the other way around though. The galactic economy needs an overhaul and part of the benefit of doing so would be to enable playing with scarcer resources something which was held out as one of the big selling points of Legends which quickly went by the wayside, without it may be noted comment from the developers or indeed much from the player base.

You can't really have too scarce resources. There is a lot of resources needed to build ships, and if these are scarce, some empires will be screwed from the start. Keep in mind that implementing a nice challenge for the human, could leave the AI completely stranded.

The 3 rare luxuries are nice items that there is competition about.

The area that could be developed as a resource competition is luxuries. I have never noticed much problems with getting enough of them.

It does not have to be resource locations which are reduced (although I think that some of this could be also done). It is true that, as you suggest, this can not be taken too far or it will cause problems for the cpu algorithm (and maybe even for the player?).

It can be reducing the quality of the yields of resources.

And it can be reducing the extraction rate of the resources.

Legends intially had one mining engine/gas extractor on the starting bases. That meant that resources were only accumulated half as fast at the start of the game as they are now. I believe that they also increased the quality of the yields of locations but I could be wrong on that. Certainly if your average steel source was 30% with occasional good locations of 50% rather than the 40-50% and 70-80% that they currently are then resources would not be as common.

As far as I can tell they wacked a second extractor on starting bases and increased the yield percentages because the galactic economy was too fragile. Yep, when resources are scarce they go up in price.

Just consider the "Iron" mine to have a processing manufactory at the same time. They smelt the ore right there and refine the iron to simple nonalloyed steel and deliver it for further refining to alloys in other manufactories.

Except that steel requires carbon and is commonly made into pig iron first. So the steel resource must be located somewhere with both iron and carbon for that logic to work. I can't remember the exact process. It's complex.

<pedantic> Also, there is no such thing as "non-alloyed" steel. Steel is an alloy. </pedantic>

Except that steel requires carbon and is commonly made into pig iron first. So the steel resource must be located somewhere with both iron and carbon for that logic to work. I can't remember the exact process. It's complex.

<pedantic> Also, there is no such thing as "non-alloyed" steel. Steel is an alloy. </pedantic>

Maybe I should have put the 'non alloyed' into marks like now. I meant pure stell of less carbon than 5% to seperate it from useless cast iron in the metallurgy and without other dopants. Actually I stated all this in my resource mod which you obviously did not read. Further todays processing does not "store" pig iron but processes it directly as hot metal:

Quote Wikipedia

Today, pig iron is typically poured directly out of the bottom of the blast furnace through a trough into a ladle car for transfer to the steel mill in mostly liquid form; in this state, the pig iron is referred to as hot metal. The hot metal is then charged into a steelmaking vessel to produce steel, typically with an electric arc furnace, induction furnace or basic oxygen furnace, by burning off the excess carbon in a controlled fashion and adjusting the alloy composition.

Quote End

And to think a future iron mine on a planets surface with an orbital spaceport to distribute it is unable to buy of carbon which weights a fifth of iron and thereby makes 1% of the whole production weight while still maintaining profit is absurd! The most consuming part is energy and the station buys a lot of it if they do not use solar collectors. Carbon as one of the most abundant resources in the galaxy is not a question to transport there or to pay for. It does not even need these amounts of coal anymore anyway. That is a bad joke. We got Carbonyl Steel powder with a purity of 99,5% since 1924 the German BASF created it. And making a unicrystal like silicium in this future shoudl further be possible. I see no reason to doubt a steel mine in space at all. Rather the opposite seems short sighted.

Indeed you could have combined these in two giant entities: Oil and Coal. The names could be changed... the sense not. Those would exist on ocean, continental and marshy swamp worlds and would be there on nearly every planet of these types (acidic oceans excluded and tectonical inactive planets) resulting in a more common resource. Actually they are common though and split in these entities in the game but they are not common in general but common on their planet types. If Elliot would increase the planet span of these resources to all live inhabiting planets - oceans too - there would be less problems. Their names are a little vague though and specific. You can NOT use every of these resources for the same purpose in the same efficiency. You would need to enhance coal to be used in petrochemic processes which consumes very much energy. Like that the use as a energy carrier is doomed and breaking oil down to carbon is a waste. Oils only use in medicine and plastics of high prices is considerable. That is why many argue NOT to burn our precious oil! We need it for future petrochemics not as a gas in the atmoshphere. Coal can field a huge industry and be transferred into nano string to create next gen carbon fiber. Though other uses apply too that WILL be coals future main role. Therefore calling it carbon fiber ingame is correct.

here the benefits of 0% tax.. some planets habe a growth ratio of over 120%

To finance the wars I traded research for money.. The boskara had more planets than me till I had the first capital ships. I started with harsh condition. All enemies with excelent conditions..

After the planets reached max population I switched to 50% tax.. but beware that you could loose all your population on a big planet too.. If there are nice quality planets with 0% tax in the near and this planet has 50% tax they will leave it.. One of my planets had reached 16billion population.. and lost 12 billion after 50% tax... Then you need to switch back to 0%.. you dont loose the population.. its just on another planets.. now I have 10 planets with max pop and good tax revenue..

Interesting thread - I think it raises some questions about just how much one can customize before it essentially becomes 'putting more queens in the field'. I don't play 'to win' like this, but I nonetheless do customize certain things: It's just annoying not being able to build a troop transport early and it seems too stupid and boring to settle for the default tax rates (which all the AIs are forced to use and thus suffer, making you gain the upper hand!).

The real issue, of course, is that things are done non-optimally in the first place - it's just weird that things get designed wrong by default. The underlying issue, however, is that a rebalancing is needed in many fields. This would also let the player just play the game without having to worry about nonsensical and tedious 'optimization' - and it would make the AI a lot more competitive, too! What's needed is things like:

1) Setting tax rate to just a few percent shouldn't completely destroy population growth compared to running 0% tax, it makes no sense at all. Honestly, the way it works is just bad; completely unintutive. I also doubt anybody truly enjoys managing tax rates but the game essentially forces you to because the penalty for not running 0% is so blatantly unbalanced.

2) Research model needs to change, it doesn't make sense that the optimal is having just three massive research stations. Of course one can conduct better research by performing it across many different locations and investigating different neutron stars/black holes/etc.

3) Place some limits on the amount of extractors, cargo bays, docking bays and more on a design by limiting their efficiency past a certain amount. Optimal play should be using designs as they are now so that one can't simply build ultimate editions of anything.

4) No re-designing of private ships to outfit them with sensors or other nonsense exploits (I actually thought this was no longer possible).

Basically, instead of making it optimal for the player to abuse the game rules, change the rules so that there's no benefit to be had from exploits. (Not to hammer on your post, Harrs, rather the game ;) )

Good points Apheirox.

However 2) is plainly wrong from a strategic point of view. You get no better research values from going this route, as compared with having minimal research bases at those three locations and the rest of your research labs in a massive spaceport. There is a distinct advantage in the latter method as you can refit the spaceport as you get better weapons/defenses or your need for labs change. Also with the three massive research labs what are you to do if you discover a better bonus location? So do not regard 3 massive research labs as optimal, far from it!

And 3) already exists to a large degree as the maxiumum extraction rate is capped in Legends at 10 for mines and 40 for gas mines. Hence there is never any point going beyond 3 gas extractors or 4 mining engines and this number drops as your tech improves. The number of cargo bays and docks although handy in some circumstances cannot lift the maxiumum throughput of resources which is limited by the extraction rate. (Note that even putting extractors on bases to reach the cap is not 'optimal' in all circumstances. With the intial mining tech that fourth mining engine only extracts at one third efficiency. Once you have the first mining tech one engine of the four is entirely useless for extracting resources and a second engine only extracts at 50% ability and yet you cannot remove them from the bases and will continue to pay maintenance for them. With the second mining tech 2 engines are entirely useless.

Unfortunately the extra maintenance costs are entirely disregardable with the current state of the economic side of the game. If the lack of challenge from the cpu empires is the players first extra queen, the ease of money-making beyond the early game is definitely the second. Personally I would have them the other way around though. The galactic economy needs an overhaul and part of the benefit of doing so would be to enable playing with scarcer resources something which was held out as one of the big selling points of Legends which quickly went by the wayside, without it may be noted comment from the developers or indeed much from the player base.

... and a good response. :)

It was a while ago so I don't recall why I posted about 'three' massive research stations - you are right, of course, one doesn't even need three, just one big super station. My point remains the same, however: Optimal research should not be possible from this small number of stations - whether one or three, one should be required to spread research stations out across the galaxy. It doesn't make sense that you can pick up a large high tech research bonus from some black hole and this bonus then gets applied empire-wide, affecting high tech research stations at the other end of the galaxy. The whole 'empire-wide bonus' concept is problematic and should be removed/reworked so that you can only get a local, capped one. Empires should be encouraged to spread out and control many research locations.

I'm interested to hear there are caps on the extraction rates - then it works how I want. From your post, however, it sounds like the caps may even be too harsh. What I mean is that it is problematic if one can max out extraction with just a few modules, even low-tech ones - that means there is little reason to invest research into extraction rate techs since the upkeep cost of these extractors is negligible: What is the point of researching an expensive extraction rate tech if all it gives you is a tiny economic bonus by having to pay upkeep on just one less module per station? It sounds like the base efficiency of extractors simply needs to be lowered so that one requires more modules - or, alternatively, upkeep cost on extractors needs to be greatly increased.

I'm not sure I agree about the 'ease of money-making' being a problem in itself - the problem, as I see it, is - as is the whole point of this thread - that the player can greatly outpace the AIs by optimizing designs, taxes and so on. If all the AIs were programmed to use the same 'optimizations' that the player can perform they too should be rolling in money and thus be able to afford some very scary fleets, just like the player - which means the playing field would be evened out and the player put under more pressure, cutting down on his/her superior economy. You may be right - perhaps the economy must be changed, but I will maintain a more pressuring goal is to bridge the gap between the player and the AI by eliminating the possibility of player 'optimization exploits'. This is ultimately what will make the game more challenging (and thus: rewarding!). Like I already said: Integrate these 'optimizations' into the default rules, designs etc so that the defaults designs, settings and so on are already at their optimal to eliminate to possibility of the player gaining an advantage by 'tweaking' stuff - the most basic example of this being to have the AIs automatically default to a 0% tax rate for maximum growth, just as the player would.

TLDR: I hope the 'small, but big' things get cleaned up for the Shadows expansion - a few simple tweaks like these suggested here leaves DW a stronger, more polished game.